The Circumcision Discussion
- page 74

I know this can be a HUGE debate, and I'm not looking to start any arguments. I was just wondering as you are OB nurses. I'm expecting a boy in July and not sure if we should circ. or not. My... Read More

Feb 22, '09

Hi all,

I posted the part of this story on another thread earlier today before I even know about this one. I registered at this site only a few days ago and can see it is a wealth of information. This is a true story that happened to me years ago. This thread brought back some old memories. I was born in the United States but have spent much of my life overseas in various military bases. The following happened before many of you on this thread were born but I can see that even now circumcision is a very polarized issue.

I once supervised at a facility where I was asked to assist in a circumcision. Having recently transferred to this U.S. hospital from another country I naively asked what was wrong with the babies penis, tightness? The doctor looked at me with a strange expression and said, "isn't it obvious, the problem is Junior needs his foreskin removed!" I asked why.

His reply was that the circumcision is being done on the boy because his parents wanted it for religious reasons. I told the surgeon that removal of any healthy body part without reason maybe a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, my medical license(s) and may have an impact on the hospitals future accreditation. I also reminded him that I had just transferred from a country that had doctors tried and convicted for performing unnecessary surgery only a few decades earlier. Some were found guilty of removing healthy body parts from infants! I was starting to become very upset with that doctor. This was partially because I had lost many family members during that period under the boot of war criminals.

I did not tell him that all of that though and asked if he or the hospital would circumcise a baby girl (removal of the clitoral hood) if it was her parents religious request. He barked at me, "who would do such a sick thing". Now remember, this was before the term FGM even existed and most westerners had never heard did not even know girls were circumcised too. I told him I have seen the results of these in several countries I had practiced in.

He told me only a sick barbarian would butcher a little girl in such a way and asked me to follow him to the President's room. All three of us had a lively discussion. First the Doctor told the President I compared him called him Dr. Josef Mengele this was a lie They told me "foreigners don't know how things are done here." I reminded them that I was born in the United States, was a citizen and had both parents serving in the U.S. military. I asked them if they knew that several countries performed both male and female circumcision for religious reasons. They said those countries were, "uncivilized"

Finally both of them tried to convince me the foreskin is as nonessential as the tonsils and appendix. I then told them removal of the tonsils and/or appendix is only indicated when a medical problem exists and that this baby seemed to be perfectly healthy. Since we were in a secular hospital that received Federal and State funding, I told them that the removal of an newborn's perfectly healthly body part, for mostly religious reasons, in a government funded hospital, seemed legally troubling at best and maybe an ethical violation at worst. I was sternly told to "just worry about the bedpans and leave the law to the lawyers". At which point I quickly reminded the both of them that I am an attorney with International Law being my specialty!

At which point I was immediately terminated because I was "insubordinate", "over-qualified" and "lacking of leadership qualities". They also told me they would contact the Board and get my license permanently revoked so I would not be able to practice in the United States ever again . The Board members were far more reasonable, one of them had a law degree as well. They said I did nothing wrong. After that I moved oversees for a while. Years later I can say I have no regrets

This termination did cause me to start to question the role of children, religion, caregivers and the law in the United States. Of course I realize that U.S. medical field is controlled by Federal, State, County and Local government. So my circumcision questions are rather generic:

If I would have said I could not perform the circumcision due to my religious convictions would I have have a better leg to stand on?

I have noticed there are religious non-medical practitioners that are allowed to perform circumcision (a medical procedure) without a license or fear of prosecution. Is it legal for religious non-medical practitioners and/or licensed medical personnel to perform a basic circumcision on an infant girl in the U.S.?

If an infant or anyone under 18 is seriously injured or dies due to complications from circumcision (infection, bleeding, etc.) can the practitioner(s) be prosecuted if they are unlicensed but in the same religious group as the minor? If so on what charge? Since they unlicensed but ordained, I would imagine they might have total or partial immunity from prosecution.

Based on what I have read in this thread (over 300,000 members with 900+ responses) I see that many healthcare providers consider the foreskin to be a unhygienic, cancer-prone, cosmetically flawed and basic non-essential piece of skin. The ear lobes could also be considered non-essential. Suppose a parent was a member of a religious group that required the ear lobes to be removed within 10 days of birth? Would a hospital perform such a procedure? If the hospital/doctor refused could an ordained clergy of the infants religion remove the ear lobes without being subject to arrest or prosecution?

Hey...we're not loggers and we (well, they) still pee outside. Especially the little one. The 36yo, not so much.
Even now they have contests to see who can get to the bathroom the fastest and who can be done peeing first. But I digress.....

I'm glad we are having this discussion, especially with some new members aboard = new perspectives...though it can be passionate at times. I'm getting ready to do a project about it at work. I hypothesize that we're losing money since Medicaid & some insurances don't pay for it in our state, and I wonder just how many people are actually paying for it after the fact. I think it will be interesting to see.

Feb 22, '09

It sort of cracks me up when I hear that "junior" has a secret, deep seeded desire to "look like his father".

I've changed clothes in front of my children, but to be honest...I've never let either of my children get THAT close, and neither has their Dad.

That wasn't even a consideration when deciding to circ our son.

Feb 22, '09

His reply was that the circumcision is being done on the boy because his parents wanted it for religious reasons. I told the surgeon that removal of any healthy body part without reason maybe a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, my medical license(s) and may have an impact on the hospitals future accreditation.

If this were true, then the vast majority of plastic surgeons would be out of business. Having a saggy belly, for example, it isn't medically necessary to have a tummy tuck to remove it...yet that is what happens...you are doing surgery to remove a piece of skin that is healthy.

I did not tell him that all of that though and asked if he or the hospital would circumcise a baby girl (removal of the clitoral hood) if it was her parents religious request. He barked at me, "who would do such a sick thing". Now remember, this was before the term FGM even existed and most westerners had never heard did not even know girls were circumcised too. I told him I have seen the results of these in several countries I had practiced in.

The purpose of doing a female circumcision is to prevent the girl from having an orgasm (unlike males, who still retain this ability) in order to "keep" her a virgin until she gets married (again, unlike males)...in some countries, another step is taken to sew the vaginal opening almost shut to where menstrual flow can take place, but not sex.. and the husband cuts it open with a knife...this is hardly even in the same catagory as many of these girls have it done in some countries with a piece of sharp glass or metal and under unsanitary conditions....so this goes far beyond any similar reason for males.

I asked them if they knew that several countries performed both male and female circumcision for religious reasons. They said those countries were, "uncivilized"

...and they are. Have you ever seen a film of a female circumcision? Tons of young girls die every year from the procedure and some even die from the SHOCK of having it done.

Finally both of them tried to convince me the foreskin is as nonessential as the tonsils and appendix. I then told them removal of the tonsils and/or appendix is only indicated when a medical problem exists and that this baby seemed to be perfectly healthy. Since we were in a secular hospital that received Federal and State funding, I told them that the removal of an newborn's perfectly healthly body part, for mostly religious reasons, in a government funded hospital, seemed legally troubling at best and maybe an ethical violation at worst.

I'm back to my plastic surgery argument...same thing.

At which point I was immediately terminated because I was "insubordinate", "over-qualified" and "lacking of leadership qualities".

...and you should have been.

If I would have said I could not perform the circumcision due to my religious convictions would I have have a better leg to stand on?

Physicians can refuse to do any procedure that goes against THEIR OWN moral or religious practices..nurses can do the same thing.

I have noticed there are religious non-medical practitioners that are allowed to perform circumcision (a medical procedure) without a license or fear of prosecution. Is it legal for religious non-medical practitioners and/or licensed medical personnel to perform a basic circumcision on an infant girl in the U.S.?

Yes...very common in the Jewish religion.

If an infant or anyone under 18 is seriously injured or dies due to complications from circumcision (infection, bleeding, etc.) can the practitioner(s) be prosecuted if they are unlicensed but in the same religious group as the minor? If so on what charge? Since they unlicensed but ordained, I would imagine they might have total or partial immunity from prosecution.

Infection comes from neglect or failure to follow aseptic technique..very rare in circumcisions...I cannot recall ever reading about a case where a non-licensed individual screwed one up...but tons of lawsuits against physicians who practically cut off the penis in the process.

Based on what I have read in this thread (over 300,000 members with 900+ responses) I see that many healthcare providers consider the foreskin to be a unhygienic, cancer-prone, cosmetically flawed and basic non-essential piece of skin. The ear lobes could also be considered non-essential. Suppose a parent was a member of a religious group that required the ear lobes to be removed within 10 days of birth? Would a hospital perform such a procedure? If the hospital/doctor refused could an ordained clergy of the infants religion remove the ear lobes without being subject to arrest or prosecution?

Hmmm...not quite the same thing. So far this year, in working as a student in a hospital, I have seen two toddlers come into the ER with penile infections with intact foreskin. I've never seen anyone with an intact earlobe come in with an infection.

Feb 22, '09

If this were true, then the vast majority of plastic surgeons would be out of business. Having a saggy belly, for example, it isn't medically necessary to have a tummy tuck to remove it...yet that is what happens...you are doing surgery to remove a piece of skin that is healthy.

But the difference is that the circumcision was not elective cosmetic surgery on an adult, as in your tummy tuck example. Does the parent has full legal authority to have any medical procedure performed whatsoever on an infant for cosmetic and religious based procedures?

The purpose of doing a female circumcision is to prevent the girl from having an orgasm (unlike males, who still retain this ability) in order to "keep" her a virgin until she gets married (again, unlike males)...The foreskin is sensitive and has many nerves. The glans in also greatly desensitized on a circumcised male because it is not protected by the foreskin. If you hear a baby being circumcised you will know how sensitive. BTW the procedure is usually done with no regard to pain. Some of those poor babies sound as if they could scream out a lung! Regardless, you are saying since the male can still have orgasms it is okay to alter him?

in some countries, another step is taken to sew the vaginal opening almost shut to where menstrual flow can take place, but not sex.. and the husband cuts it open with a knife...this is hardly even in the same catagory as many of these girls have it done in some countries with a piece of sharp glass or metal and under unsanitary conditions....so this goes far beyond any similar reason for males.That procedure is should not be confused with circumcision, which is removal of the clitoral hood. Besides, as painful and as extreme as this sewing procedure sounds, if the parent claims it is part of their religious beliefs do they or do they not have the right to have such a procedure performed? I guess my larger question is, in the United States how exempt is religion from applicable medical standards? Transfusions, vaccinations, circumcisions, demand for same gender caretakers, etc.

I asked them if they knew that several countries performed both male and female circumcision for religious reasons. They said those countries were, "uncivilized"

...and they are. Have you ever seen a film of a female circumcision? Tons of young girls die every year from the procedure and some even die from the SHOCK of having it done.

You missed the legal irony I found in their use of the word "uncivilized". You see I was amazed that they called the other countries uncivilized when they were about to perform a circumcision themselves. It was a medical double standard that went right over their heads. BabyLady I will never need to see any film on female circumcision because I have seen it performed many times within a few meters from me!

Guess what, I was the one who tried to help these young girls with practically no resources at all. ti was been chased having rocks thrown at me for trying to stop the procedures from happening in the the first place. Our little clinic was even burned down. As in the United States, I was told that it was their religious right to circumcise those girls and I had to leave the country because my sponsers thought i was a trouble maker.

Finally both of them tried to convince me the foreskin is as nonessential as the tonsils and appendix. I then told them removal of the tonsils and/or appendix is only indicated when a medical problem exists and that this baby seemed to be perfectly healthy. Since we were in a secular hospital that received Federal and State funding, I told them that the removal of an newborn's perfectly healthly body part, for mostly religious reasons, in a government funded hospital, seemed legally troubling at best and maybe an ethical violation at worst.

I'm back to my plastic surgery argument...same thing.

I'm back to seeing a double standard ...same thing. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? My son's parts are just as importants as my daughter's.

At which point I was immediately terminated because I was "insubordinate", "over-qualified" and "lacking of leadership qualities".

...and you should have been.

Why BabyLady? Below you wrote, "Physicians can refuse to do any procedure that goes against THEIR OWN moral or religious practices..nurses can do the same thing."

Well, the procedure was against MY moral practices so why do you feel it was okay to terminate me? If I were a Catholic should I be terminate for not assisting in an abortion. If I were a Jehovahs Witness would you think it was okay for the hospital to terminate me for not doing blood transfusions?

Left me correct you on something. Back then we ladies in the medically field were not respected and were treated poorly with very few rights. I know other older women on this forum know exactly what I am talking about! Believe me, we could get fired for refusing to do a procedure. So, why do you think I should have been terminated?

If I would have said I could not perform the circumcision due to my religious convictions would I have have a better leg to stand on?

Physicians can refuse to do any procedure that goes against THEIR OWN moral or religious practices..nurses can do the same thing.

I have noticed there are religious non-medical practitioners that are allowed to perform circumcision (a medical procedure) without a license or fear of prosecution. Is it legal for religious non-medical practitioners and/or licensed medical personnel to perform a basic circumcision on an infant girl in the U.S.?

Yes...very common in the Jewish religion.

BabyLady did you read my question? It asked, "is it legal for religious non-medical practitioners and/or licensed medical personnel to perform a basic circumcision on an infant girl in the U.S.?" You answered, yes... very common in the Jewish Religion." I did not think Jews circumcised girls? I have only seen it performed by certain Muslim groups in Africa and Asia.

If an infant or anyone under 18 is seriously injured or dies due to complications from circumcision (infection, bleeding, etc.) can the practitioner(s) be prosecuted if they are unlicensed but in the same religious group as the minor? If so on what charge? Since they unlicensed but ordained, I would imagine they might have total or partial immunity from prosecution.

Infection comes from neglect or failure to follow aseptic technique..very rare in circumcisions...I cannot recall ever reading about a case where a non-licensed individual screwed one up...but tons of lawsuits against physicians who practically cut off the penis in the process.

I have personally seen many botched circumcisions. You are a student, so I am probably much older than you. Why do you think doctors have a worst safety record than non-licensed unregulated individuals performing circumcision? Can non-licensed clegy be sued under malpractice statues if they botch the procedure?

Based on what I have read in this thread (over 300,000 members with 900+ responses) I see that many healthcare providers consider the foreskin to be a unhygienic, cancer-prone, cosmetically flawed and basic non-essential piece of skin. The ear lobes could also be considered non-essential. Suppose a parent was a member of a religious group that required the ear lobes to be removed within 10 days of birth? Would a hospital perform such a procedure? If the hospital/doctor refused could an ordained clergy of the infants religion remove the ear lobes without being subject to arrest or prosecution?

Hmmm...not quite the same thing. So far this year, in working as a student in a hospital, I have seen two toddlers come into the ER with penile infections with intact foreskin. I've never seen anyone with an intact earlobe come in with an infection.

Read the question again, it is a hypothetical. We attorneys like to use them a lot. The question was basically asking, if a parent's religion called for the removal of a child's ear lobes (non-essential?) would a hospital or clery have the right to perform the operation (aka male circumcision)? Or would it be considered cruel (aka female circmcision)

This is an open forum so anyone can feel free to comment or ask questions. I am caregiver and an attorney, hence my questions.

Feb 22, '09

Just for fun I looked up the exact definition of mutilate...to deprive of, cripple or maim, to make imperfect by seriously damaging a part. Well, you get the point. I personally think circumcision is a little bit mutilation. Thank goodness it doesn't leave the "part" seriously damaged for life. Ha,ha. I just don't see why a parent would cut off any normal part of a babys body. For the most part a foreskin does not cause any life sustaining difficulties. The male body obviously knew what it was doing as it evolved through time. It seems to be more a cultural thing than not.

Feb 22, '09

I had interesting insight into this issue recently. My next door neighbor, who moved 5 years ago from east to west coast, just had her babe on the OB floor where I work. She had a great experience, said her east coast friends were freaked out because she had a doula, was on a birthing ball and ambulating despite being induced on Pitocin (One geographical difference. Not that this is unheard of on the east coast, just not the norm)

Once home with her sweet baby boy, I went to visit, and she nervously asked what she needed to do to get her baby circumcised, as they didn't do it in the hospital. I, in a non-judgmental way, talked to her about how and where to go. When she asked why insurance doesn't cover, and I explained to her that it's not medically indicated, she was flabbergasted. Everyone she knows on the East Coast has circumcised their baby boys. I provided her with the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and she was so relieved to leave that scary and painful option for her baby behind. After she did more research on the subject, she stated that on the east coast 70% of male infants are circumcised, while 30% are on the west coast. It is in part a geographical social norm.

Strong education must be done in the prenatal course.

Feb 22, '09

I think the biggest thing about the circumcision - tummy tuck analogy is the recipient of the procedure. I give consent to my own tummy tuck (and I could surely use one!)....my son cannot give consent to the removal of his own (normal, healthy) foreskin.

Just so we are clear on the female genital cutting (that is the term preferred by AWHONN, btw), there are several classes of it. I think I've posted them somewhere in the 96 pages of this thread, but here they are again:Type I - Removal of the prepuce (hmmm), w/ or w/o excision of all or part of the clitoris. (AKA circumcision, sunna, and clitoridectomy).

Type II - Excision of the clitoris w/ partial or total removal of the labia minora

Type III - Excision of all/part of external genitalia and stitching of the vaginal introitus with an exit left for urine and menstrual blood. (AKA Pharaonic circumcision, Somalian circumcision)

Type IV - Unclassified - pricking; piercing; stretching; cauterization; scraping of tissue in or around the vagina; anything else that does not fall into types I-III.

(hat-tip to Nursing for Women's Health, August-September 2007.)

It does not seem to me that FGC across the boards removes a woman's ability to orgasm. Certain types, most definitely. But making cuts in labia or vaginal tissue does not by definition prevent orgasm. (women who've had lacs or epis w/ vag deliveries, perhaps?) But even the most minor cut to a girl's labia is illegal here, as well it should be.

I also find it interesting that every other industrialized country (and many other developing countries, for that matter) sees circumcision of boys in much the same light as we in the US see FGC.

I think the biggest thing about the circumcision - tummy tuck analogy is the recipient of the procedure. I give consent to my own tummy tuck (and I could surely use one!)....my son cannot give consent to the removal of his own (normal, healthy) foreskin.

Just so we are clear on the female genital cutting (that is the term preferred by AWHONN, btw), there are several classes of it. I think I've posted them somewhere in the 96 pages of this thread, but here they are again:Type I - Removal of the prepuce (hmmm), w/ or w/o excision of all or part of the clitoris. (AKA circumcision, sunna, and clitoridectomy).

Type II - Excision of the clitoris w/ partial or total removal of the labia minora

Type III - Excision of all/part of external genitalia and stitching of the vaginal introitus with an exit left for urine and menstrual blood. (AKA Pharaonic circumcision, Somalian circumcision)

Type IV - Unclassified - pricking; piercing; stretching; cauterization; scraping of tissue in or around the vagina; anything else that does not fall into types I-III.

(hat-tip to Nursing for Women's Health, August-September 2007.)

It does not seem to me that FGC across the boards removes a woman's ability to orgasm. Certain types, most definitely. But making cuts in labia or vaginal tissue does not by definition prevent orgasm. (women who've had lacs or epis w/ vag deliveries, perhaps?) But even the most minor cut to a girl's labia is illegal here, as well it should be.

I also find it interesting that every other industrialized country (and many other developing countries, for that matter) sees circumcision of boys in much the same light as we in the US see FGC.

You are absolutely correct..."across the board" it does not impair the ability of an orgasm, however, that is the original intent of the practice.

One of the reasons that the term was changed from "circumcision" to "mutilation" (for some, but not all cases, as you stated in the different types, there are different ways to perform them), sometimes the labia is actually scraped and sewn together...so this too must be cut open each time the woman gives birth and then sewn BACK together again...and this process is repeated over and over again with each birth.

Again, not all cultures go this far, but some of them do. So the body is subject to this severe trauma time and time again, unlike boys who full heal in just a few days and then it's over with.

We are actually being taught in school that there is scientific evidence (we even had test questions on it) that uncircumcised males are at a higher risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases because the foreskin can serve as a warm harbor and create the "nest" effect for the virus or bacteria.

These studies have been done mostly in Africa...and may change the way the medical profession looks at it in the future.

Last edit by BabyLady on Feb 22, '09

Feb 22, '09

[quote=dnp2004;3455571]

if this were true, then the vast majority of plastic surgeons would be out of business. having a saggy belly, for example, it isn't medically necessary to have a tummy tuck to remove it...yet that is what happens...you are doing surgery to remove a piece of skin that is healthy.

but the difference is that the circumcision was not elective cosmetic surgery on an adult, as in your tummy tuck example. does the parent has full legal authority to have any medical procedure performed whatsoever on an infant for cosmetic and religious based procedures?

we live in the usa. male circumcisions have been approved and are legal but female circumcisions, generally are not. however, i did see a program on 20/20 (about 8 years ago) where the ethics committee of a hospital allowed a female circumcision to take place on their two daughters, because the parents were from egypt and the parents wanted the procedure done under anesthesia and under sanitary conditions...they were going back to egypt and did not want their daughter's subjected to the practice there, because it was going to be a necessity for the daughter's to marry.

so, it's not totally illegal as it is extremely uncommon with rare exception.

the purpose of doing a female circumcision is to prevent the girl from having an orgasm (unlike males, who still retain this ability) in order to "keep" her a virgin until she gets married (again, unlike males)...the foreskin is sensitive and has many nerves. the glans in also greatly desensitized on a circumcised male because it is not protected by the foreskin. if you hear a baby being circumcised you will know how sensitive. btw the procedure is usually done with no regard to pain. some of those poor babies sound as if they could scream out a lung! regardless, you are saying since the male can still have orgasms it is okay to alter him?

i have actually assisted an rn in several circumcisions and every pediatrician that does them at our facility uses full pain control. the baby does not move nor cry during the procedure. i will refuse to participate in any circumcision where pain control is not used...just as you would on any adult or child. to me, physicians should be barred from the practice by the state unless they do.

in some countries, another step is taken to sew the vaginal opening almost shut to where menstrual flow can take place, but not sex.. and the husband cuts it open with a knife...this is hardly even in the same catagory as many of these girls have it done in some countries with a piece of sharp glass or metal and under unsanitary conditions....so this goes far beyond any similar reason for males.that procedure is should not be confused with circumcision, which is removal of the clitoral hood. besides, as painful and as extreme as this sewing procedure sounds, if the parent claims it is part of their religious beliefs do they or do they not have the right to have such a procedure performed? i guess my larger question is, in the united states how exempt is religion from applicable medical standards? transfusions, vaccinations, circumcisions, demand for same gender caretakers, etc.

i am not confusing the two...as another poster pointed out, there are several, several methods as to the way they are performed. again, we are in the usa...not a foreign country...my job is to be aware of the practices here.

people here have the right to refuse any medical procedure or treatment, including transvusions, vaccinations, circumcisions (which you have to opt to do, they are not done routine here), and yes, you can demand the same gender caretaker...i sure as heck did when i had my children. with muslim religions, if in doubt, healthcare professionals had better ask .

i asked them if they knew that several countries performed both male and female circumcision for religious reasons. they said those countries were, "uncivilized"

...and they are. have you ever seen a film of a female circumcision? tons of young girls die every year from the procedure and some even die from the shock of having it done.

you missed the legal irony i found in their use of the word "uncivilized". you see i was amazed that they called the other countries uncivilized when they were about to perform a circumcision themselves. it was a medical double standard that went right over their heads. babylady i will never need to see any film on female circumcision because i have seen it performed many times within a few meters from me!

well, i live in the usa and i am very proud of that. i am also proud that we have college classes that did show us documentaries that were filmed in other countries.

i don't exactly believe that circumcision with pain full pain control is in the same realm as holding a girl down with 4 people and using a piece of glass or metal to cut off part of her genitals with no pain control, in unsanitary conditions and with no pain relief after...nor would i support that for a male circumcision.

guess what, i was the one who tried to help these young girls with practically no resources at all. ti was been chased having rocks thrown at me for trying to stop the procedures from happening in the the first place. our little clinic was even burned down. as in the united states, i was told that it was their religious right to circumcise those girls and i had to leave the country because my sponsers thought i was a trouble maker.

everyone in the world cannot live according to our standards. that is the fact of life. children in ethiopia and other countries are starving to death and dying on a daily basis...but i can't stop eating and stop feeding my own children out of sympathy...there are tragedies all over the world. ask any woman in china who has lost a child to gov't mandated infanticide.

finally both of them tried to convince me the foreskin is as nonessential as the tonsils and appendix. i then told them removal of the tonsils and/or appendix is only indicated when a medical problem exists and that this baby seemed to be perfectly healthy.

actually, in this country, the removal of the tonsils and the adenoids used to be quite routine here in the usa and even if it was medically warranted for the tonsils or the adenoids, but not both, they would just go ahead and yank them both out "while they had the child under"...they don't do this practice as routinely as they once did, and it hasnt' been that many years ago.

since we were in a secular hospital that received federal and state funding, i told them that the removal of an newborn's perfectly healthly body part, for mostly religious reasons, in a government funded hospital, seemed legally troubling at best and maybe an ethical violation at worst.

nope, because circumcision of a male, is legal in this country...the ama allows physicians to do it and so does the law in every state. until that changes, there is no conflict...maybe on a personal level for some, but not globally.

parents that oppose it...the answer is simple...if you don't like it, then don't have your son circumcised.

i'm back to my plastic surgery argument...same thing.

i'm back to seeing a double standard ...same thing. what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? my son's parts are just as importants as my daughter's.

if you are suggesting that the two procedures are equally invasive, that would be medically incorrect.

at which point i was immediately terminated because i was "insubordinate", "over-qualified" and "lacking of leadership qualities".

...and you should have been.

why babylady? below you wrote, "physicians can refuse to do any procedure that goes against their own moral or religious practices..nurses can do the same thing."

well, the procedure was against my moral practices so why do you feel it was okay to terminate me? if i were a catholic should i be terminate for not assisting in an abortion. if i were a jehovahs witness would you think it was okay for the hospital to terminate me for not doing blood transfusions?

they sure couldn't because the practice of your religion is a legally protected class. however, you are missing the point:

you got fired because you proceed to argue with those that were in charge about the legalities of it, when it was legal. a nurse would also probably be suspended or fired if they were against circumcision and they threw a hissy fit every time a physician (that wasn't aware of their beliefs) asked them to participate in one, or even worse, shoved their views on the family. hospitals have to respect your personal religious beliefs, but they sure don't have to give you a soapbox plus an audience to air them out.

the professional thing to do would be to say, "i am sorry, i have moral issues with circumcision, however i know that ______ assists in them frequently, let me call him/her to assist you with that.

that is the way an educated professional would have handled it.

i am not a jehovah witness, however, i would never say a word to a co-worker (when i graduate) that didn't want to participate in a blood transfusion that was one. all she would have to do is say, "i'm a jw"...and i am there to support her in that. it is not my place or job to make her "justify" her reasoning.

left me correct you on something. back then we ladies in the medically field were not respected and were treated poorly with very few rights. i know other older women on this forum know exactly what i am talking about! believe me, we could get fired for refusing to do a procedure. so, why do you think i should have been terminated?

i'm not a fresh out of high school student, i am almost 40 years old. i am well aware of the stuggles of women in this country, however, had i been a teenager in the 60's you sure as heck wouldn't have seen me burning my bra and having sex with every guy out there just because i could.

there is a time and a place for everything....you just didn't pick the proper time and place for having a political/religious/ethical discussion. a simple "yes...i will help you" or "no, i cannot because of moral/religous reasons"...you went too far with it...yes, nurses can refuse to do procedures based on religious beliefs now...what used to happen 20 or 30 years ago is no longer relevant to today's nursing practice.

if i would have said i could not perform the circumcision due to my religious convictions would i have have a better leg to stand on?

absolutely, and if i had been your co-worker i would have been more than happen to take over for you.

physicians can refuse to do any procedure that goes against their own moral or religious practices..nurses can do the same thing.

i have noticed there are religious non-medical practitioners that are allowed to perform circumcision (a medical procedure) without a license or fear of prosecution. is it legal for religious non-medical practitioners and/or licensed medical personnel to perform a basic circumcision on an infant girl in the u.s.?

yes...very common in the jewish religion.

babylady did you read my question? it asked, "is it legal for religious non-medical practitioners and/or licensed medical personnel to perform a basic circumcision on an infant girl in the u.s.?" you answered, yes... very common in the jewish religion." i did not think jews circumcised girls? i have only seen it performed by certain muslim groups in africa and asia.

the topic is the circumcision of males...not females. please refer back to the original pos.

if an infant or anyone under 18 is seriously injured or dies due to complications from circumcision (infection, bleeding, etc.) can the practitioner(s) be prosecuted if they are unlicensed but in the same religious group as the minor? if so on what charge? since they unlicensed but ordained, i would imagine they might have total or partial immunity from prosecution.

infection comes from neglect or failure to follow aseptic technique..very rare in circumcisions...i cannot recall ever reading about a case where a non-licensed individual screwed one up...but tons of lawsuits against physicians who practically cut off the penis in the process.

i have personally seen many botched circumcisions. you are a student, so i am probably much older than you. why do you think doctors have a worst safety record than non-licensed unregulated individuals performing circumcision? can non-licensed clegy be sued under malpractice statues if they botch the procedure?

then again, didn't you say you were from another country? i'm not saying that us medical care is superior everywhere...but some countries, it takes very little to be a physician.

based on what i have read in this thread (over 300,000 members with 900+ responses) i see that many healthcare providers consider the foreskin to be a unhygienic, cancer-prone, cosmetically flawed and basic non-essential piece of skin. the ear lobes could also be considered non-essential. suppose a parent was a member of a religious group that required the ear lobes to be removed within 10 days of birth? would a hospital perform such a procedure? if the hospital/doctor refused could an ordained clergy of the infants religion remove the ear lobes without being subject to arrest or prosecution?

hmmm...not quite the same thing. so far this year, in working as a student in a hospital, i have seen two toddlers come into the er with penile infections with intact foreskin. i've never seen anyone with an intact earlobe come in with an infection.

read the question again, it is a hypothetical. we attorneys like to use them a lot. the question was basically asking, if a parent's religion called for the removal of a child's ear lobes (non-essential?) would a hospital or clery have the right to perform the operation (aka male circumcision)? or would it be considered cruel (aka female circmcision)

this is a nursing message board, not for attorney's....that outfit is down the hall. please find me a religion that removes earlobes routinely after birth..i am always looking to learn about world religions.

this is an open forum so anyone can feel free to comment or ask questions. i am caregiver and an attorney, hence my questions.

being an attorney doesn't necessarily make you superior as a healthcare provider...but for some odd reason, you think the two are related, and they are not.

Feb 22, '09

One of the reasons that the term was changed from "circumcision" to "mutilation" (for some, but not all cases, as you stated in the different types, there are different ways to perform them), sometimes the labia is actually scraped and sewn together...so this too must be cut open each time the woman gives birth and then sewn BACK together again...and this process is repeated over and over again with each birth.

Yes.....it is done that way. We've dealt with this multiple times at work.

However, AWHONN's preferred term is Female Genital Cutting, because after multiple studies on the subject, it was found that many women who've undergone the procedure don't consider themselves to have been mutilated. Regardless of how it is viewed by others.

We are actually being taught in school that there is scientific evidence (we even had test questions on it) that uncircumcised males are at a higher risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases because the foreskin can serve as a warm harbor and create the "nest" effect for the virus or bacteria.

These studies have been done mostly in Africa...and may change the way the medical profession looks at it in the future.

The studies that supposedly showed the HIV-circumcision link were flawed. 1) During the course of the study, the circumcised group was advised to abstain from sex for six weeks of healing. The intact group didn't have that. Of course, if you're going six weeks, or even half that, with fewer sexual partners, you're going to transmit/receive less HIV. 2) I'm not really sure that implementing surgical procedures widespread on newborns in Africa is the way to reduce HIV. We're talking about governments that cannot even assure their population a clean water supply - and now we want them to perform sterile surgical procedures on newborns on a massive scale? 3) Male circumcision is performed under the same level of anesthesia and sterility as FGC in countries where FGC is practiced. 4) If there is a link between circumcision and HIV, then let men/older boys get circumcised when they decide to become sexually active. I have no problem with adult men deciding to have this done for themselves. 5) Considering the US has the highest circ rate in the industrialized world along with a higher STD transmission rate than Europe (very few circs), we might want to consider other avenues to prevent STD transmission....like monogamy, abstinence, and safer sex.

It bears repeating....everybody in this thread needs to read Warrior Marks by Alice Walker.

Yes.....it is done that way. We've dealt with this multiple times at work.

However, AWHONN's preferred term is Female Genital Cutting, because after multiple studies on the subject, it was found that many women who've undergone the procedure don't consider themselves to have been mutilated. Regardless of how it is viewed by others.

The studies that supposedly showed the HIV-circumcision link were flawed. 1) During the course of the study, the circumcised group was advised to abstain from sex for six weeks of healing. The intact group didn't have that. Of course, if you're going six weeks, or even half that, with fewer sexual partners, you're going to transmit/receive less HIV. 2) I'm not really sure that implementing surgical procedures widespread on newborns in Africa is the way to reduce HIV. We're talking about governments that cannot even assure their population a clean water supply - and now we want them to perform sterile surgical procedures on newborns on a massive scale? 3) Male circumcision is performed under the same level of anesthesia and sterility as FGC in countries where FGC is practiced. 4) If there is a link between circumcision and HIV, then let men/older boys get circumcised when they decide to become sexually active. I have no problem with adult men deciding to have this done for themselves. 5) Considering the US has the highest circ rate in the industrialized world along with a higher STD transmission rate than Europe (very few circs), we might want to consider other avenues to prevent STD transmission....like monogamy, abstinence, and safer sex.

It bears repeating....everybody in this thread needs to read Warrior Marks by Alice Walker.

I'm sure you've probably read along your studies that the practice of circumcising infants shortly after birth (less than 8 days) had to do with a former medical belief (that we all know now in modern medicine...was sooooo not correct), was that the infant could not feel pain in the first few days of life. Seriously...what did they expect the little guy to do...sit up on the board and say, "Dude...you know...that kind of hurts when you are messing with my boy down there."

I am SO with you on the fact that in some areas, cultures shouldn't be circumcising anyone (male or female), even for religious reasons, unless pain control is used or the procedure can be performed clean.

I think we can agree that Africa...is a whole other thread.

The circumcision debate will probably continue as long as I am breathing on this earth, but each of us have our own reason for doing so. Religion, cost, nor "looking like Dad" were factors in my decision to circ my son. It did have to do with how I interpreted research (and for every pro-circ article, you can always find an anti-circ article) was that I came to the personal decision that it was better for my son's health..again, based on my personal belief.

I insisted on pain control, I insisted on a plastibell and I was meticulous about the wound being covered with protective gel until it could heal so he wouldn't scream every time he urinated or had a bowel movement. I was informed that he didn't even cry when put on the board and rested comfortably through the procedure.

However, had a I run into a Pediatrician that didn't think pain control was important...no way would I have put my son through that...I would have got someone else or it just wouldn't have been done.